The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C)NO.12772 of 2020 Laxman Behera …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Das, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 21.07.2023 Order No 8. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the rejection of his claim to get the benefit of grant-in-aid as against the 6th post of Demonstrator in Physics. 3.1. It is contended by Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the 6th Post of Lecturer in Physics was validated w.e.f 01.07.1985 vide order dt.27.03.2001 of the Director, Higher Education, Orissa under Annexure-3. The Petitioner was appointed as a Demonstrator as against the 6th post of Physics vide order dt.22.09.1992. It is contended that since the 6th post // 2 // of Lecturer in Physics has been validated w.e.f 01.07.1985 and the Lecturer continuing the said 6th post of Physics is getting the grant-in-aid, the Petitioner having been appointed as a Demonstrator as against the said 6th post of Physics, is also eligible and entitled to get the benefit of grant-in-aid. In support of his submission, Mr. Das, learned counsel produced before this Court the order passed by this Court in FAO No.614 of 2012. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted hereunder: “Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the respondents have been appointed against the post of Demonstrators in the subjects of Chemistry, Biology and Physics by the Governing Body on 02.11.1991 and basing upon such appointment order, they joined on 22.11.1991 and 2.12.1991 respectively. The lecturers attached to the respective Departments have already got their services validated by virtue of the Validation Act, 1998 and in consequence thereof, their posts have been duly approved and they have received the benefits of grant-in-aid. Therefore, on receipt of the benefits by the lecturers of the concerned Departments, the Demonstrators attached to the said Departments are also entitled to receive the benefits in terms of para-8 of Annexure-III of the Grant-in-aid Order, 1994. In the preliminary counter affidavit, it has also been brought to the notice of the Court that one Debendra Nath Barik Laboratory Attendant in Chemistry of the very same college has also approached learned State Education Tribunal claiming grant-in-aid in terms of para-8 of Annexure-III of the Grant-in-aid order, 1994 which was allowed. Challenging such order, the State also filed appeal before this Court and after being unsuccessful, the State went in appeal before the apex Court, which was also dismissed. In consequence thereof, the services of Debendra Nath Barik have been approved from the date the post of the Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Lecturer was approved. In view of that since one person similarly situated like that of the respondent nos.1,2 & 3 has already received the benefits of grant-in-aid para-8 of Annexure-III of the Grant-in- aid Order, 1994, the present respondents should not have been denied the benefits of grant-in-aid. For the foregoing reasons and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned State Education Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.”0 3.2. It is contended that even though such a plea was taken by the Petitioner while claiming for approval of his services and for release of grant-in- aid, but his prayer was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-7 by holding that the decision taken in FAO NO.614 o 2012 is not applicable. 3.3. It is contended that once the post of Lecturer as against the 6th post of Physics is validated w.e.f 01.07.1985 and the lecturer appointed as against the said 6th post of Lecturer in Physics is getting the benefit of grant-in-aid, the Petitioner since is continuing as a Demonstrator as against the 6th post of Physics, is also eligible and entitled to get the benefit of grant-in-aid. This issue has already been decided by this Court in FAO No.614 of 2012 which has also been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C ) No.18170-18171 / 2014 dt.17.11.2014. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable for interference of this Court. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 4. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate though does not dispute the ratio decided by this Court in FAO NO.614 of 2012, but contended that the matter be remitted back to Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the petitioner in the light of the order passed in FAO NO.614 of 2012. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the submissions made, this Court is of the view that the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of grant-in-aid as against the 6th Post of Demonstrator in Physics is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in FAO No.614 of 2012. The rejection of his claim on the ground that the decision in FAO No.614 of 2012 is not applicable as per the considered view of this Court is not sustainable. Since the Lecturer appointed as against the 6th post of Physics has been validated w.e.f 01.07.1985, the Petitioner having been appointed as a Demonstrator as against the 6th Post of Physics is also eligible and entitled to get the benefit of grant-in-aid. 6. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order at Annexure-11 and while quashing the same, directs the Opp. Party No.1 to approve the services of the Petitioner as against the post of Demonstrator against the 6th Post of Physics and take consequential action for release of grant-in-aid in his favour as due and admissible from the date of his Page 4 of 5 // 5 // entitlement. Such an exercise be undertaken and completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2023 13:02:51 Page 5 of 5